American Politics

[QUOTE=CaliGuy;2748348]Biden proved today that without the teleprompter he is just plain stupid. When is the last time a president called out for a dead person to be acknowledged in the crowd. Brandon at his finest.[/QUOTE][URL]https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/philadelphia-record-crime/2022/09/29/id/1089560/?fbclid=IwAR2EWiTq9I0tp09d4FrnoQrn7A41MKkwmm5Pb8ouLhZm60QJO0C-w2FzYg8[/URL]#CommentSection.

[URL]https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/09/29/pollak-why-is-no-one-discussing-the-25th-amendment-for-joe-biden/[/URL]

No one wants to invoke the 25th amend because Harris is even more brain dead than Joe LMAO.

He picked her as a firewall for this very reason LOL.

Barry Joe and Harris aka dumb dumber and dumbest LOL.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2748602]I don't know what the deal is with "bothsiderism" here. ... suspect it's a derogatory term used for people who aren't tribal. You've got to join up with the Trump tribe or the Sanders tribe, and heaven forbid you think for yourself. Is that how it works? If so, God help us. I fear that's what's happening to America.[/QUOTE]Thats exactly what it is. And usually from the people that CANNOT think for themselves. How ironic. Yes, its how it works. Our way, or the highway. Thats the US system. Been that way for a few decades, I call it binary thinking, and yes it does spell trouble.

Don't worry, the protagonist has joined my shortlist of ignored folk. No doubt he will respond here with more drivel. He is like a dog w a bone. Hehe.

[QUOTE=JustTK;2748620]Thats exactly what it is. And usually from the people that CANNOT think for themselves. How ironic. Yes, its how it works. Our way, or the highway. Thats the US system. Been that way for a few decades, I call it binary thinking, and yes it does spell trouble.

Don't worry, the protagonist has joined my shortlist of ignored folk. No doubt he will respond here with more drivel. He is like a dog w a bone. Hehe.[/QUOTE]Speaking of out of the box thinking about politics, I watched all of your short video and about 20% of the long one while I was doing my three S's this morning (shit, shower, shave). I think they're definitely right about sanctions. They don't hurt the leaders, just the people, and give the leaders an excuse to blame all their f*ck ups on the USA. And they're partly right about meddling in other country's affairs. I'd part company with them on economics though. Pinochet may have been a son of a bi*tch, and his regime may have killed 2000 or 2500 people, but he did wonders for the economy. I don't think the ends justified the means though. We shouldn't have helped depose Allende.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2748598]I don't much care what happened 100 years ago, during FDR's time or whenever.

My reasons for favoring Republicans are two fold:

1. I believe more Republicans than Democrats favor smaller federal government. And clearly, IMO, smaller government is correlated with greater prosperity. When you leave more money in the pockets of the people and businesses, instead of channeling it off as directed by politicians in Washington D.C. to a massive federal bureaucracy, we're better off. Government doesn't grow the economy, the private sector does.

2. Republicans are less likely to levy extortionate taxes on me.

So how do I justify "1"? Well, as follows.

This table shows GDP per capita, adjusted for purchasing power, by country:

[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP) _per_capita[/URL]

When you kick out small places and petrostates, including Norway, the wealthiest countries per capita in the world are Singapore, Ireland, Switzerland, the United States, and Hong Kong.

This table shows government expenditure and government revenue as a % of GDP, by country:

[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_government_spending_as_percentage_of_GDP[/URL]

Sort this table by government revenue, in increasing order. Kick out developing countries, small places and petrostates. The countries with the lowest government revenue as a % of GDP are Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, Ireland, the United States, and Switzerland.

You could also sort the same table by government expenditure as a % of GDP. But the ranking of the USA and other countries will be misleading because of the massive amounts dumped into economies for COVID stimulus in 2020. So, instead, look at the same table, with 2018 data, in the Wayback Machine. (Wikipedia never provided the 2019 data):

[URL]https://web.archive.org/web/20210224223114/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_government_spending_as_percentage_of_GDP[/URL]

You'll need to copy and paste to Excel to Sort. Sort from smallest to largest by government expenditure. Again, kick out developing countries, small places and petrostates. The countries with the lowest government expenditure as a % of GDP are Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Ireland, Switzerland, and the United States.

Do you see a pattern? The five wealthiest countries in the world, sans small places and petrostates, are Singapore, Ireland, Switzerland, the United States and Hong Kong. And the developed countries, excluding small places and petrostates, with the smallest governments are Singapore, Ireland, Switzerland, the United States, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. So they're the same, except for Taiwan! And Taiwan is no slouch.

An interesting observation IMO, the United States has the most progressive taxation system in the OECD. And Hong Kong, if it were a country, would have one of the most regressive tax systems among developed countries. In other words, the level of taxation and government expenditure, i.e. the size of government, is what matters most, not the progressivity of the tax system.

The majority of the Democratic Party wants to grow government so it's comparable in size, in relation to the economy, to European social welfare states. I figure over the long term this would perhaps result in a 15% to 25% hit to GDP per capita. That is, a reduction to levels comparable to Germany or France. And that's huge.

The left's response to what I've thrown out would be, so what. The GDP per capita for those countries is pumped up by the billionaires. What does that do for the workingman? And I suspect they'd have basis to say that for Hong Kong, and to a lesser extent for Ireland. But in terms of "median equivalent adult income" for OECD countries, which represents median disposable income per person including all forms of income and taxes and transfer payments from government, the USA is number 2 and Switzerland is number 4. The number 1 country, Luxembourg, is a small place (600,000 population) and number 3, Norway, is a petrostate. Please recall the definition of median. Median means the 50th percentile -- half of Americans make more than the median income and half make less. Here's a link to median equivalent adult income by country, for the OECD:

[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income[/URL]

Note that median equivalent adult income for Germany is 27% less than the USA, and it's 33% less for France! We in the USA are blessed to have small (relatively speaking) government.[/QUOTE]Interesting that your 1 and 2 reasons for favoring Repubs are among the many reasons I favor Dems and have only voted for Dems without voting for a Repub since Reagan's first term in office. I don't vote based on repeatedly unfulfilled campaign promises. I vote based on what actually happens when each of the two major Parties is in the White House. Factoring in the Repub penchant for never meeting an opportunity to plunge America into a Great Recession they didn't embrace, those piddling tax cuts for the vast majority of Americans they dangle before us on the campaign trail and sometimes plant into legislation pale in comparison to the massive jobs destruction, skyrocketing debt and deficits spent during and to pull us out of them that must be paid for by somebody eventually.

Yes, that pattern began even before FDR. But it didn't stop there. It continued right through to Trump less than two years ago. Even Trump's pre-Trump's Pandemic years underperformed on "greater prosperity" if prosperity has anything to do with jobs creation, earned income and GDP growth and "smaller federal government" if by that you mean less government spending with virtually nothing to show for it. And, of course, by the end of Trump's disastrous four year economic stewardship it is certain more people and businesses did not find themselves with "more money in their pockets".

Now, I didn't live, work, invest, buy things and pay taxes in Switzerland, Singapore or any of those other countries. So while it is interesting to note how they did over time, what matters more to me in terms of those very 1 and 2 factors you mentioned as well as many others is what happened in the USA over time.

[B]Why Are Republican Presidents So Bad for the Economy?
G.D.P., jobs and other indicators have all risen faster under Democrats for nearly the past century.
Feb. 2, 2021
[/B]

[URL]https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/02/opinion/sunday/democrats-economy.html[/URL]

[QUOTE]Since 1933, the economy has grown at an annual average rate of 4.6 percent under Democratic presidents and 2.4 percent under Republicans, according to a Times analysis. In more concrete terms: The average income of Americans would be more than double its current level if the economy had somehow grown at the Democratic rate for all of the past nine decades. If anything, that period (which is based on data availability) is too kind to Republicans, because it excludes the portion of the Great Depression that happened on Herbert Hoovers watch.

The six presidents who have presided over the fastest job growth have all been Democrats, as you can see above. The four presidents who have presided over the slowest growth have all been Republicans.

[b]Why?[/b]
What, then, are the most plausible theories?

First, its worth rejecting a few unlikely possibilities. Congressional control is not the answer. The pattern holds regardless of which party is running Congress. Deficit spending also doesnt explain the gap: It is not the case that Democrats juice the economy by spending money and then leave Republicans to clean up the mess. Over the last four decades, in fact, Republican presidents have*run up larger deficits*than Democrats.

That leaves one broad possibility with a good amount of supporting evidence: Democrats have been more willing to heed economic and historical lessons about what policies actually strengthen the economy, while Republicans have often clung to theories that they want to believe like the supposedly magical power of tax cuts and deregulation. Democrats, in short, have been more pragmatic. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2748602]I don't know what the deal is with "bothsiderism" here. I'm not sure what it means, but suspect it's a derogatory term used for people who aren't tribal. You've got to join up with the Trump tribe or the Sanders tribe, and heaven forbid you think for yourself. Is that how it works? If so, God help us. I fear that's what's happening to America.[/QUOTE]As I use it, "Bothsiderism" is only a derogatory term or a pejorative if one sees being identified as "pro-Repub" as an insult.

Bothsiderism and False Equivalencies are generally meant to elevate the slackers, bring them up a notch or two, and denigrate the performers, bring them down a notch or two so as to suggest "both sides" are more or less "equally" responsible for good or bad outcomes. Sure, that can be a fun exercise. But it can be quite damaging when it comes to elections and who is handed the levers of control for serious matters like money, jobs, national security, etc.

For example, there is no reputable source of economic data or spin on it that can or has shown that over the past 100 years or so, right up to Trump, it was Repubs and not Dems who were better at producing prosperity, increasing GDP growth, creating jobs, putting money in pockets and businesses, paying down the debt and deficit, averting or avoiding major economic downturns, recovering us from major economic downturns and so on. None.

So by rights Repubs ought to by now have no more than, oh, maybe a 5% fluky chance of ever winning any election for any office ever.

However, thanks to the magic of "Bothsiderism" and "False Equivalency", their chances are often raised to as much 47-50%! That is quite an improvement for those folks. And if MSM and other "Bothsider, False Equivalency" practitioners do a bang up job of demonizing some relatively insignificant sucker social issue here and there, the Repubs' chances improve to as mush as 52% or so and, bingo, we're saddled with another Repub economic steward bent on finding whatever new and unprecedented way to crash the USA economy and wipe out millions of jobs is out there to be embraced by them.

See, it is only an insult if you think that is a bad thing for which to be a proponent.

2020 Census Vastly Overcounted Democratic States, Undercounted GOP States.

[URL]https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/2020-census-overcounted-democratic-states-undercounted-gop-states/ar-AA12o1jd[/URL]

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2748601]

One comment about the rest of your post. I'm privileged to know the smartest son of a bit**h, at least as far as economics is concerned, who posts on hooker boards. He used to go by Captain Midnight. He points out that the U.S. money supply, M1 and M2, have been flat since February. And commodity prices have been coming down. As such, he thinks high inflation may not last as long as many think. He still thinks we're in for a recession though. This makes sense to me for the USA. But I'm not so sure about other countries. If you look at M1 and M2 for most other countries, in their local currencies, they're still increasing at a rapid clip. And commodity prices haven't really fallen. If you live in Europe, you're looking at crazy prices for electricity and home heating. Why the difference between what's happening in the USA and other countries? Well a lot of it's the strength of the dollar. We in the USA are blessed to have the predominant reserve and trading currency.

Kudos for going short! You're right about interest rates and the stock market, but most people, including me, didn't take advantage of what we all knew was coming.[/QUOTE]Tiny, I do not mean to shoot down your guy Captain Midnight but the importance of M1 to M3 markers were of huge importance in the 1980's and I think it was Milton Friedman who brought their importance to the public. That said, how often do you use cash these days? Not much right? What freezes the market is not a lack of cash but a lack of credit. Banks can lend 5 to 10 X the amount of cash they have on hand. The bonds and stocks they own can easily be liquidated into cash. The stock market is down 10 trillion and the bond market is probably close to the same since the Fed started raising rates. M1 is $20 trillion, and that much has been lost in the stock and bond market in the last six months but more importantly potentially 10 X that amount has been taken out of the liquidity market.

The CEO of Landry's restaurants was on CNBC and he confirmed the obvious. The credit markets have dried up. Everyone is looking at credit markets these days versus money supply because the credit markets are so much bigger. And the reason everyone talks about the Fed is that they pretty much set the rates on the credit market.

But that is the demand side, and the Fed can control that by restricting the amount of credit there is out there. When you look at supply, we were already having issues just keeping up with the post-Covid world. Then you look at the war in Ukraine and there has been and will be tightness with fertilizer, oil, gas, and food as both Ukraine and Russia were huge wheat exporters.

Thing is if you look at all those things the only one the USA does not have is the potash type fertilizer but we rely on friendly Canada for 83% of our needs of it. The rest of it the USA has in abundance and in particular Texas. China, Europe, and Japan are hugely dependent on exports for all of those things. I do not see anyone coming up with solutions for the loss of Russian oil and gas for at least 3 to 5 years, and food and fertilizer have really not been hit to the extent they will be.

People call inflation in housing stick but to me this is the most sticky of them all. Demand for food and energy is pretty much inelastic. Mankind will solve the problem, however the incentive for that solution will be higher prices.

So everyone thinks the dollar's move is due to its reserve currency status and the Fed raising rates, but I think a huge part of it is how much the world is going to have to buy our stuff and how much it is going to cost.

And Texas has it all: food, fertilizer, natural gas, gas pipelines, refineries, and oil.

Of course, the 100 stock NASDAQ is an Index. I have not seen anyone here argue otherwise. It is the 3rd most popularly quoted Index in the USA stock market.

But that one and the 30 stock Dow Jones Industrial Average are not the most often go-to Index for Wall Street to more accurately measure the state of the USA stock market. As I have posted many times here, that would be the S&P 500 Index, so named because it includes 500 of the biggest company stocks in America. It is market-weighted and represents 80% of the value of the USA stock market.

I think the overviews of those 3 Indexes here can help even a stock market investment novice, wannabe long term investor or short term speculators alike, understand why the S&P 500 Index and not the NASDAQ, many of which stocks are not even based in the USA, as that aforementioned go-to measure:

[B]What is an Index[/B]

[URL]https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/index.asp[/URL]#text=An%20 index%20 is%20 a%20 method, certain%20 area%20 of%20 the%20 market.

As you see, they do make a compelling case that the Wilshire 5000 Index, sometimes referred to the Total Stock Market Index, might actually be a better measure for the USA stock market for reasons that I think are clear in its often referenced name.

As I have posted here more than once already, that is the Index I have had money earmarked for equities in for many years. Prior to that, going back to the early 1990's, I was in an S&P 500 Index Fund because the Wilshire 5000 Index Fund was not available to me in my company's 401 k investment options.

Again, as I have posted here more than once already, I generally maintain 80-90% of my equity holdings in that Total Stock Market Index Fund and the rest in a Global Equity Fund.

Again, as I have posted here more than once already, I have only sold out and bought back into the market a couple of times over the decades. And then only because I had identified what I felt was a set of circumstances that would lead to a deep Recession, which is quite often accompanied by a major Bear Market decline and, later, a major recovery.

For me, it was not the other way around. As a long term investor I had little interest in tracking yield curves, Fed Funds moves and so on in order to scramble around hourly, daily or weekly worrying about market tops, bottoms, shorts or longs and all that stuff. I was only looking for indicators of a major Recession and, later, a major recovery or expansion. The stock market move would mostly just be an accompanying factor.

I have been even less interested in tracking the the ups and downs of the stock market over the past decade or so. I have opened my Vanguard account only once in the past year. And that was only because I got an email from Vanguard suggesting I open it every now and then or they will think I have died and they will proceed with beneficiary distributions, taxes on withdrawals and so on. LOL.

Luckily, I made enough money in those great Clinton and Obama Bull Runs and managed to dodge or at least weather the various GW Bush and Trump Bear Market declines that I was able to bank and invest in sources of ongoing streams of income along the way such that I don't need to bother with the stock market game at all. Just not interested. It's there. I'm glad I have it. But I don't need it to enjoy the lifestyle I looked forward to enjoying decades ago exactly the way I am enjoying it today.

If anything, my current retirement lifestyle exceeds what I'd hoped for.

But the key word is "enough. " Unlike a twice Impeached defeated so-called potus, I have never bragged anywhere about being "wealthy" or "smart". But It turns out if you chose a no-brainer broadly diversified Index fund to invest in long term, rain or shine, good times and bad, since the early 1990's with only 1 or 2 judicious moves along the way, you would by now have indeed captured a 1000%+ return on those early dollars.

Oh, and again as I have posted here more than once already, my for the fun of it prognostication is that the S&P 500 Index, the USA stock market's most common measure on Wall Street, will be tickling around the area of 5,000 by the middle of next year if not the end of this year.

[blue][Deleted by Admin][/blue]

[b][u]EDITOR'S NOTE[/u]:[/b] [blue]This report was redacted or deleted to remove sections of the report that were [u]largely argumentative[/u]. Please read the Forum FAQ and the Forum's Posting Guidelines for more information. [i]Thank You![/i][/blue]

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2748635]I watched all of your short video and about 20% of the long one. I think they're definitely right about sanctions. . And they're partly right about meddling in other country's affairs. I'd part company with them on economics though. Pinochet may have been a son of a bi*tch, and his regime may have killed 2000 or 2500 people, but he did wonders for the economy. I don't think the ends justified the means though. We shouldn't have helped depose Allende.[/QUOTE]Its great that you took the time and show interest in broadening views. But the economy is a terribkle metric to use to view leadership performance. Why? Bcos it excuses failures on all other metrics. You have to look at the entire picture. And this is where I think ET fails when he defends the Dem Party. Even Hitler did a great job on the economy:
[URL]https://gradesfixer.com/free-essay-examples/the-impact-of-adolf-hitler-on-the-economy-of-germany/[/URL]

"We shouldn't have helped depose Allende".
Everyone deserves the right to self-determination.

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2748676]As I use it, "Bothsiderism"

no reputable source has shown that it was Repubs and not Dems who were better at producing prosperity, increasing GDP growth, creating jobs, putting money in pockets and businesses, paying down the debt and deficit, averting or avoiding major economic downturns, recovering us from major economic downturns and so on.
[/QUOTE]BUt that is binary thinking ET. A vote for the opposition is not the same as a vote for no one, nor is it the same as a vote for a 3rd party. Neither practically nor in moral intent.

And your insistence that the Dems have done a better job than the Reps is very poor rationale. Even if we accpet that what you claim is true, a skeptic would rightly claim that you are cherry picking the data. Only highlighting the metrics that favour the Dems. What about war record, coups, minority rights, immigration etc? Countless other metrics that you ignore.

You also only measure the Dems v Reps. Even if we accept what you claim is true again, so what?? Does that make it a good record? No! All it would prove is a better performance than a very poor record. The Dems have still done poorly themselbves. Just not as poorly as the Reps.

And now on to why I don't accept your claim. As I and Tiny have both pointed out to you countless times. And here one more time:
- When there is a gain during Dem leadershiop. ET says it bcos of the Dems (never bcos of the previous Reps or a 3rd factor).
- When there is a loss during Dem leadershiop. ET says it bcos of the previous Reps (never bcos of the Dems a 3rd factor).
- When there is a gain during Rep leadershiop. ET says it bcos of the previous Dems (never bcos of the Reps or a 3rd factor).
- When there is a loss during Dem leadershiop. ET says it bcos of the Reps (never bcos of the previous Dems a 3rd factor).

[QUOTE=CaliGuy;2748348]Biden proved today that without the teleprompter he is just plain stupid. When is the last time a president called out for a dead person to be acknowledged in the crowd. Brandon at his finest.[/QUOTE]Donnie the Dumbass told more lies in his so-called presidency* than any other president in history. Something like 30 K+. Since Donnie the Dumbass was only in office for 1460 days, that works out to more than 20 lies per day. All without a teleprompter.

Would you like me to post a link to a video that shows all of the [B]just plain stupid[/B] teleprompter-less gaffes told by Donnie the Dumbass, your lord and savior? I thought not.

[QUOTE=JustTK;2748783]BUt that is binary thinking ET. A vote for the opposition is not the same as a vote for no one, nor is it the same as a vote for a 3rd party. Neither practically nor in moral intent.

And your insistence that the Dems have done a better job than the Reps is very poor rationale. Even if we accpet that what you claim is true, a skeptic would rightly claim that you are cherry picking the data. Only highlighting the metrics that favour the Dems. What about war record, coups, minority rights, immigration etc? Countless other metrics that you ignore.

You also only measure the Dems v Reps. Even if we accept what you claim is true again, so what?? Does that make it a good record? No! All it would prove is a better performance than a very poor record. The Dems have still done poorly themselbves. Just not as poorly as the Reps.

And now on to why I don't accept your claim. As I and Tiny have both pointed out to you countless times. And here one more time:
- When there is a gain during Dem leadershiop. ET says it bcos of the Dems (never bcos of the previous Reps or a 3rd factor).
- When there is a loss during Dem leadershiop. ET says it bcos of the previous Reps (never bcos of the Dems a 3rd factor).
- When there is a gain during Rep leadershiop. ET says it bcos of the previous Dems (never bcos of the Reps or a 3rd factor).
- When there is a loss during Dem leadershiop. ET says it bcos of the Reps (never bcos of the previous Dems a 3rd factor).[/QUOTE]It isn't my "insistance" that gives Dems the notable edge in producing better economic results than Repubs. It's the data.

You have any quotes or examples for your accusations about what I assert when there is a gain for Repubs and all that? I suspect I provide plenty of substantiation for what I assert about what actually happened and why. But I am willing to review your linked quotes to give it some consideration.

Feel free to work in partnership with Tiny to see what you can come up with on that.

[QUOTE=JustTK;2748777]Its great that you took the time and show interest in broadening views. But the economy is a terribkle metric to use to view leadership performance. Why? Bcos it excuses failures on all other metrics. You have to look at the entire picture. And this is where I think ET fails when he defends the Dem Party. Even Hitler did a great job on the economy:
[URL]https://gradesfixer.com/free-essay-examples/the-impact-of-adolf-hitler-on-the-economy-of-germany/[/URL]

"We shouldn't have helped depose Allende".
Everyone deserves the right to self-determination.[/QUOTE]I forget, did Hitler cut taxes disproprotionately high on the top income margins / the wealthy, give shit tax cuts to the middle and lower income margins to help pay for those top margin tax cuts and ignore or cut regulations, particularly on banks and financial institutions and have a Department of Thrift Supervision in his Treasury Department that didn't supervise or monitor a damn thing while billions in Liar Loans were being floated for years like notable USA Repub presidents did to produce their Great Repub Recessions and crap economic results?

If so then Hitler's great economic success was indeed a unicorn. But if not, then no wonder he produced better economic results than most Repubs of the past century.

Actually, reading your link I see Hitler most definitely focused on creating jobs, improving conditions for workers, utilizing government spending to stimulate the German economy and create even more and better jobs.

So even a lunatic like Hitler can produce better economic results than Repubs as long as he avoids like the plague duplicating the idiotic economic policies of the Repub Party.

Then the beauty of Dem leadership is you get the superior economic results without invading Poland and creating the Holocaust.

LOL. Great post and link! Thanks for that.

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2748811]It isn't my "insistance" that gives Dems the notable edge in producing better economic results than Repubs. It's the data.
Feel free to work in partnership with Tiny to see what you can come up with on that.[/QUOTE]It's not necessary. As I explained in my last post, I can grant you it, but it is still very poor rationale. Even if we accept that what you claim is true, a skeptic would rightly claim that you are cherry picking the data. What about war record, coups, minority rights, immigration etc?

And why does beating the Reps mean it is a good performance?